DETAILED AC1TION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 10-19 in the reply filed on 03 August 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that one or more elements of Group I are similar to one or more elements of Group II. Applicant indicates that independent claim 1, dependent claim 12, and independent claim 19 all recite operating the sensor at a first sensitivity level, operating the sensor at a second sensitivity level, and then returning the sensor to the first sensitivity level. Applicant contends that, as such, there is no serious search burden for the Examiner. Applicant also states that, since a Restriction Requirement is optional, Applicant should not be required to additional costs for multiple application filings.
However, this traversal is not found persuasive because the restriction requirement was made under a different premise. The restriction requirement of 04 June 2026 stated that, while Group II is limited to optical signal production and detection, Group I has no such limit and could potentially be used for any type of signals. For example, the searches for the limitations of claims 12 and 19 are made in view of an optical system, yet the controller of claim 1 could potentially be read on by other systems as well, which are outside the scope of a search for the claims of Group II. The Examiner also wishes to clarify the typographical errors in regards to the delineation of Groups I and II. Group I comprises claims 1-10, while Group II comprises claims 11-20. Finally, in regards to a Restriction Requirement being optional, the Examiner has made this Restriction Requirement to clarify that a single invention is examined.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: In Para. [0037], the Examiner assumes that “via an optical element 322-1.” should actually be -- via an optical element [[322-1.]] 323-1.--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 20 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 12: In Line 2, the Examiner assumes that “operate the a portion” should actually be --operate [[the]] a portion--.
Claim 20: In Line 2, the Examiner assumes that “The method of claim 17” should actually be --The device of claim 17--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the detector" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if Applicant means that the sensor is masked, or if the event monitoring and detection device is masked. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that “the detector” should actually be --the sensor--.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the open chamber event monitoring and detection device" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, claim 20, which depends upon claim 17, recites “an open chamber event monitoring and detection device” in Line 2. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner which switch the limitations of claims 17 and 20. Thus the claims will be as follows:
Claim 17: The device of claim 16, wherein the event monitoring and detection device is an open chamber event monitoring and detection device.
Claim 20: The device of claim 17, wherein the beam of light is configured to travel along a surface hollow of the open chamber event monitoring and detection device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verdegan et al. (US 2009/0185188), hereinafter Verdegan, in view of Maikov et al. (US 2023/0358675), hereinafter Maikov.
Claim 11: Verdegan discloses an event monitoring and detection device (Figs. 3A-3C), comprising:
a light source (320) configured to emit a beam of light (325) [0044];
a sensor (340) configured to:
receive a scattered portion (335B/C) of the beam of light (325) and produce a second signal associated with the scattered portion (335B/C) [0045]; and
a controller (360) configured to provide a notification responsive to:
an increase in the second signal that exceeds an increase threshold (“If the rate of change exceeds a stored critical rate of change, an output signal can be generated to instruct the output unit 360 to notify the user of deteriorating conditions of the sample fluid” [0045]).
Verdegan does not explicitly disclose the sensor receiving the beam of light and producing a first signal associated with the beam of light.
However, the use of a reference detector to receive a beam of light and produce a first signal associated with the beam of light is well known, as shown by Maikov. Maikov, in the same field of endeavor of fluid quality monitoring, discloses a detection device (Fig. 3) comprising:
a light source (126) configured to emit a beam of light [0116]; and
a sensor (RD/130) configured to:
receive (at RD) the beam of light and produce a first signal associated with the beam of light [0117]; and
receive (at 130) a scattered portion of the beam of light and produce a second signal associated with the scattered portion [0117].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Verdegan’s sensor to be configured to also receive the beam of light and produce a first signal with said beam for the purpose of properly compensating for any variations in the emitted beam of light.
Claim 15: Verdegan further discloses wherein the notification indicates that the sensor (340) is masked (e.g. by externally induced contamination [0045]).
Claim 16: Verdegan further discloses wherein:
the light source (320) is configured to continuously emit the beam of light [0044]; and
the sensor (340) is configured to:
continuously receive the beam of light and produce the first signal associated with the beam of light (evident from modification in claim 11 rejection above); and
continuously receive the scattered portion (335B/C) of the beam of light (325) and produce the second signal associated with the scattered portion (335B/C) [0045].
Claim 17: Verdegan further discloses wherein the event monitoring and detection device is an open chamber event monitoring and detection device (“the chamber can be flow-through chamber where fluid continuously flows through the chamber” [0045]).
Claim 20: Verdegan further discloses wherein the beam of light is configured to travel along a surface hollow of the open chamber event monitoring and detection device (evident from Figs. 3A-3C).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verdegan, in view of Maikov as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Hudson et al. (GB 2630365), hereinafter Hudson.
Claim 12: Verdegan is silent with respect to operating the sensor at first and second sensitivity levels.
Hudson, however, in the same field of endeavor of particulate sensing, discloses an event monitoring and detection device, comprising:
a controller configured to provide a notification responsive to a particle determination exceeding a threshold (Abstract),
wherein the controller is configured to:
operate a portion of the sensor at a first sensitivity level (“The first particulates may comprise particulates with a first diameter (and/or of a first type). The first diameter may be a range of diameters. For example, the first diameter may represent PM1 particulates”, Page 7, Lines 19-24);
temporarily operate the portion of the sensor at a second sensitivity level (“The second particulates may comprise particulates with a second diameter (and/or of a second type). The second diameter may be a range of diameters. The second diameter may represent PM2.5 particulates”, Page 7, Lines 24-27); and
return the portion of the sensor to the first sensitivity level after detecting PM2.5 particulate matter during operation at the second sensitivity level (“it may be desirable for a sensor to be replaced… when Y particulates of the second type are detected”, Page 8, Lines 2-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Verdegan’s controller to operate at first and second sensitivity levels for the purpose of accurately detecting different types of particulate matter.
Claim 13: Verdegan, in view of Hudson, further discloses wherein the controller is configured to temporarily operate the portion of the sensor at the second sensitivity level according to a user-configurable schedule (evident since the user may decide on the selected sensitivity levels; Hudson, Page 7, Lines 19-31).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verdegan, in view of Maikov as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of McMaster (US 5,705,988), hereinafter McMaster.
Claim 14: Verdegan is silent with respect to the controller being configured to transmit the notification to a remote computing device.
McMaster, however, in the same field of endeavor of photoelectric smoke detection, discloses wherein a controller is configured to transmit a notification to a remote computing device (“When the threshold is exceeded, the detector activates a local alarm, such as a light emitting diode (LED), and sends an alarm notification signal to a remote panel”, Col. 1, Lines 23-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Verdegan’s controller to be configured to transmit the notification to a remote computing device for the purpose of allowing measurements to be performed in volatile environments without compromising human safety or electronics integrity.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verdegan, in view of Maikov as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2026/0018038), hereinafter Kim, and Palumbo (US 2007/0222986), hereinafter Palumbo.
Claim 18: Verdegan discloses wherein the light source (320) is a laser diode or a white light source [0035], but does not explicitly disclose the light source being a plurality of light-emitting diodes.
However, Verdegan provides these light source types as non-limiting options. Kim, furthermore, in the same field of endeavor of smoke detection, discloses wherein a light source (111) may be a single LED or laser diode, or a plurality of LEDS or laser diodes [0032].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Verdegan’s light source to comprise a plurality of LEDs for the purpose of scanning multiple wavelength ranges, such as visible and UV.
Verdegan is silent with respect to a total internal reflection optical element.
Palumbo, however, in the same field of endeavor of nephelometry, discloses a detection device (Fig. 10) comprising:
a light source (56) configured to emit a beam of light,
wherein the beam of light is configured to be emitted via a total internal reflection (TIR) optical element (60) [0033].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Verdegan’s device with a TIR optical element for the purpose of ensuring a high signal-to-noise ratio by preventing weakening of the light source by natural divergence.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudson, in view of Maikov.
Claim 19: Hudson discloses a method, comprising:
operating a first portion of a sensor of an event monitoring and detection device at a first sensitivity level (“The first particulates may comprise particulates with a first diameter (and/or of a first type). The first diameter may be a range of diameters. For example, the first diameter may represent PM1 particulates”, Page 7, Lines 19-24);
operating the first portion of the sensor at a second sensitivity level (“The second particulates may comprise particulates with a second diameter (and/or of a second type). The second diameter may be a range of diameters. The second diameter may represent PM2.5 particulates”, Page 7, Lines 24-27); and
returning the first portion of the sensor of the event monitoring and detection device to the first sensitivity level (“it may be desirable for a sensor to be replaced… when Y particulates of the second type are detected”, Page 8, Lines 2-6),
receiving a second signal produced by a second portion of the sensor, wherein the second signal is associated with a scattered portion of the beam of light (“an optical particulate sensor may comprise… a photodetector for receiving light scattered by particulates present in the sensing volume and illuminated by light from the light source”, Page 11, Lines 5-9); and
providing a notification responsive to:
determining that an increase in the second signal exceeds an increase threshold (Abstract).
Hudson does not explicitly disclose the sensor receiving the beam of light and producing a first signal associated with the beam of light.
However, the use of a reference detector to receive a beam of light and produce a first signal associated with the beam of light is well known, as shown by Maikov. Maikov, in the same field of endeavor of fluid quality monitoring, discloses a method (using a detection device, Fig. 3) comprising:
receiving a first signal and a second signal produced by a second portion of a sensor (RD/130), wherein the first signal (at RD) is associated with a beam of light [0117], and wherein the second signal (at 130) is associated with a scattered portion of the beam of light [0117].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hudson’s sensor to be configured to also receive the beam of light and produce a first signal with said beam for the purpose of properly compensating for any variations in the emitted beam of light.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on 571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hina F Ayub/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights